The Collected Letters, Volume 31

We know not what night you are coming; but hope only it will be soon. I have got your Fourth Volume1 (best thanks for such a Gift), and have not yet time to read it except in snatches, but struggle forward towards a freer
day before long. You have an enviable and admirable power of clearing off, in articulate swift piercing utterance, the divine
indignation that may be lying in you against the genus charlatan; whereby you can then say, Exoneravi animam meam [I have unburdened my soul], and proceed to new enterprises: it is a very different, and I assure you a much worse case,
when said indignation cannot be got cleared off, but lies sticking upon a man, like burning sulphur on the skin of him,—like to drive the poor soul mad
till he some how or other do get rid of it! Euge;—and be thankful to Heaven.

It seems the genus charlatan has broken out in strong counter-cry, in some of the Reviews, this month: that also is very well,
and indicates to a man that the physic has begun griping,—more power to it.2 I can well understand how a comfortable R.A. reading these Books of yours, may be driven to exclaim, “I, stiff old stager,
cannot alter according to this Ruskin's precepts: I must either blow my brains out, or convince myself that he is wrong!”3— — Nevertheless I bid you be gentle withal; consider that it is a stupid bedrid old world, torpid except at meal-time this long while; and never would, in Art or elsewhere, correspond any way handsomely to the Ideal of
its duties. Besides it makes a dreadful squealing, if you whip it too hard; and does you a mischief in the long run.— This is Pot speaking to
Kettle, you will say,—and truly with too much reason. Pot has been longer on the fire (that is all), and regrets his extreme
blackness, if he could have helped it by any method!4

I have a message for you, or indeed two messages. The first is from Lady Ashburton, a very high Lady both extrinsically and
intrinsically, who invites you hereby to her Party at Bath House for Wednesday Evg next:5 the place, as you perhaps know, is in Piccadilly (first gate, to left in Bolton Street there), the hour of rally is probably
10 or after, and the Party I suppose will consist of the usual elements in their highest figure of perfection. Perhaps you
will consent to have a look at such a thing in its best perfection, for once? There are very fine Pictures in the House, and
many of them, Dürers, Murillos6 &c &c: and I certify the Host & Hostess to be themselves highly worth knowing. If you thought of coming, it would be pleasantest
if we all went together;—tho' that, for practical result, is not of the least moment:—we two (unfortunately, I may well call
it) are to dine previously that night, somewhere in the Portman Square region;7 and wd need to be taken up there (with a good loss of distance to you) if you pleased to like that method of entrance. Either way
will do, if indeed you decided to go at all; which I may privately hope or not, but have no business to advise or desire in
an audible manner.

The second message is from Lord Ashburton: You made an Address at Manchester lately; which perhaps was printed, separately
or at least in the Newspapers:8 his Lordship (an amiable, clear-minded, highminded man,—uniformly high in volitions at least) desires to see a copy of this address; and bids me ask it of you. Comply
if you can; even take a little trouble to comply.

And this is all I had at present: sufficient for the day is the evil thereof!9 You will have to write your determinations on those important points. We are out on Saturday Evg, not otherwise, nor like to be, except as here indicated.

2. H. F. Charley wrote of vol. 4: “This book contains scores of passages … from which we could illustrate the ignorance and knowledge in one,—the
combined arrogance and reverence of its writer,—the utter disdain of self-consistency, melancholy in a poet, but culpable
in a preacher—and his tremendous assumptions of infallibility in all matters which concern Fate, the Future, and other such
grave topics. … [W]e close for the present our dealings with one whose state of mind seems to us grievous, and whose writings
are provoking” (Athenaeum10 May); for his review of vol. 3, see TC to JRU, 18 Jan. An unsigned review in the Economist said that the ferocity of Ruskin's expression had “both lessened and retarded his influence” but that his style was “clear,
bold, and racy,” influenced by TC but “without adopting Carlyle's exaggerated and un-English expression, he has appropriated
all that is forcible and vivid in his peculiarities” (1 March; J. L. Bradley, ed., The Critical Heritage [1984] 178–79). Henry Chorley (1808–72; ODNB; see TC to MAC, 9 Oct. 1837, and TC to MAC, 9 Oct. 1837) also reviewed Ruskin in Edinburgh Review and implied that Ruskin was too strongly influenced by TC, writing that he “enters the exhibition-room as an overseer, summoning
gallery-loungers to stand and deliver their sympathies,—calling on bad painters to tremble,—and assailing those whom he dislikes
with menaces and insults” (103 [April]: 536 and 555).

3. Before Modern Painters, Ruskin's reputation as an uncompromising art critic had grown as a result of his Notes on the Royal Academy's summer exhibition, begun 1855. In a note on “Beatrice” by Sir Charles Eastlake (1793–1865; ODNB; see TC to JAC, 9 May 1854), Ruskin said it was an imitation of the Venetians and that Eastlake “ends like all imitators must end, in a rich inheritance
of the errors of his original with none of its virtues” and that Beatrice's face showed “little piety and less wit” (Royal Academy Notes [1855]: 14–15). In March, Eastlake's wife, Lady Elizabeth (1809–93; ODNB; see TC to JAC, 9 May 1854), friend of Effie Millais, wrote a fierce, personal attack on Ruskin, accusing him of dogmatism and sophistry, saying that
he had “forfeited all title to courtesy,” that he was morally destitute, and that “his writings have all the qualities of
premature old age—its coldness, callousness and contraction” (Quarterly Review 98 [March]: 386).

8. “Address to the Workmen employed on the Oxford Museum,” Oxford, 18 April. It was pbd., Jackson's Oxford Journal,26 April. In his address Ruskin echoed TC's view that “the great mistake of the day was, not distinguishing between work which was
calculated to have a permanent and beneficial effect for the good of society, and that which was of a transient nature.” He
mentioned speaking to TC “the other day” about the suffering of needlewomen, then cited JWC as saying that the reason for
their suffering was that “they could not stitch, and that was the secret of their not getting work; but when they could work
in a plain way and a proper way, then they could get employed” (Ruskin's Works 16:433).